Thankfully, this was slightly less of a WTF moment in context: UN bans WMD sales to terrorists
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously passed a resolution aimed at keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. It means all UN member states will have to pass laws to stop terrorists and black market traders from buying, selling or developing such weapons.
Only slightly, mind you: the actual UNSC resolution isn't quite as feckless as a casual reading of the BBC article might suggest, but it ain't all that resolute, either. All in all, I can't say that I blame Reader praktike over at Tacitus for the double-take on this one; the article's author was being just the tiniest bit sloppy in reporting this (it's mostly a procedural resolution that's modifying and codifying existing ones, not really breaking news).
And let's not start on the headline.
We are saved! Huzzah!
Posted by: nagoya ryan | April 29, 2004 at 12:54 AM
I just want to note here that, if there is any thing good that comes out of the Spanish attacks, a harmonization of these laws across borders is one of them. This bilateral stuff is too ad hoc.
That said, I wish the UN had taken this up in the 1990s.
Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2004 at 08:50 AM
NY Times headline:
Ban on Weapons of Doom Is Extended to Qaeda-Style Groups
Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2004 at 11:58 AM
Does anyone really have confidence in the U.N.?
Aren't they consistently a day late and a dollar short.
Will they oversee and implement this as well as the "Oil for Corrupt U.N. leaders but the U.S. is evil" program.
Posted by: OdysseusInRTP | April 29, 2004 at 12:00 PM
asdf, I'd just like to say that "Weapons of Doom" is a much cooler name than "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
Odysseus, I want so badly to believe that the United Nations can work that it pains me to say that I'm glad that it sounds like this is a treaty rather than a program; the individual nations are agreeing to a policy, rather than the gestalt* UN enforcing it directly.
* Is there a word for something that's less than the sum of its parts?
Posted by: EDG | April 29, 2004 at 12:48 PM
Folks, headlines aside, the UN is calling for countries to harmonize their anti-terror laws.
And that's a good thing.
Posted by: asdf | April 29, 2004 at 02:16 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong, asdf - I agree entirely.
Posted by: EDG | April 29, 2004 at 02:44 PM
EDG:
Is there a word for something that's less than the sum of its parts?
Several. Committee or bureaucracy leap to mind.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | April 29, 2004 at 10:31 PM
Well, there goes that business opportunity down the drain...
Posted by: psetzer | April 29, 2004 at 11:16 PM